About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
that, but on the theological debate, that's how do you reconcile with science definitively establishes what your what faith teaches? with the age of the earth, there's no conflict. in the beginning, god created the heavens and earth, and the scientific advances allowed us, given us insight into when and how he did it, but i believe god did it. that's how i reconcile that. that's consistent with the teachings of my church. other people have a deeper con flipght. i think in america, we should have the freedom to teach our children whatever we believe, and that means teaching them science. they have to know science, but parents have the right to teach theology and reconcile the two things as they believe and see fit, and i think that's the point the president was making back in 2007 when he was asked the question. that's what i was saying. >> accepting that, how old is the earth? >> science says it's -- my faith teaches it's not inconsistent, but god great created the universe. god creates help and earth, and science gives us insight. the more science learned, the more i'm convinced that
in south florida as great a strain folks at entry point, there is science and progress of human trafficking. awareness part is important. they have to take the place when the internet for law enforcement because a lot of times they find themselves into prostitution and get treated as perpetrator rather than victims. if ecologists force them into a perpetrator but in fact we are the dems and they have to give him for certain judicial system to treat a women as victims and put them in a setting with a pull themselves away from drug addiction or whatever it's supposed appendices seem to keep them trapped. >> first i want to ask you a couple twitter questions that have come in what we've been talking here. one is who's the best meter in washington? >> robert griffing. [laughter] >> why did the majority of americans reject the republican party? >> i think it was an election. it was a very close election when he looked than others and differences between. there is their free enterprise may maintain we need to improve on the way they connect those policies of the everyday life of everyday people.
'll be joint staffers who are doing the real science and math on this on exactly what formations, what capabilities, and, therefore, how many civilians and military need to remain. i think that if you go to one end of the spectrum and go with just a few thousand soldiers, that's not enough to really secure yourself or do either too well. i think that's what my own research is doing. talking to a lot of smarter people in the week here in the capital region. if you go very large, you could run the risk of having the security forces from afghanistan become too reliant in those areas upon us because we're there taking care of them. i think they can be mitigated, i really do. there's got to be a really good, i think, science to exactly how you approach troops to task based upon the missions that we're given. that really is what needs to happen militarily. economically, we've got to stay informed in the -- invested in the region. you've got to have security forces. it's a sustainable force that works for afghans in the outyears. at the same time, diplomatically you've got to continue reconci
is with us. the science is clear. national security establishments all know that this is real. there is a rearguard action in this building but i polluters to try to prevent us in taking action on this. we have to face the fact that deniers are wrong. they are just dead wrong. whatever motivations may be, they are wrong and we have to deal with that and i think some of the courtesy we've given to one another collegially really have to yield to the fact that some of the things said in the senate and equitably in this committee chamber just plain wrong. sandy shows the price of not being attentive to these facts in a thank you for your leadership, madam chair. >> senator, i want to thank you for your remarks. i feel, as you do, that the clock is ticking and hurricane sandy has shown us all what the scientist sitting right in this room today i got the goupil all were sitting right there and told us exactly what would happen and it's all happening. you can close your eyes and cover your ears and put a pillow over your head, but anyone with a heart beat and he pulls can tell that t
equipment, in r&d, in science education and infrastructure and so forth. the question many people, sir, don't want to consider is where do we get those resources with those enormous debts? i asked our research department if they would make a reasonable prediction of how important interest costs would be if we did nothing, and their estimate without any explosion in interest rates was as follows: within 25 years or so, our interest costs would jump from about 1% of the gdp to 12% of the gdp or roughly four times the total investment made in r&d, science education and infrastructure. and if we ever permit that to happen, we will have assured that we're going to have what i call a slow growth crisis. and that's at least my way of formulating what happens if we don't do anything. but, mike, please, take over. this is your meeting, not mine. >> well, one of the things i don't claim to be here is an economics expert, although it's from a national security standpoint, and i've felt this way for years, that it's not just about the health of our economy, it's around the world, it's the health of eco
events are allowed the office of science and technology policy to identify work apps are. you can discuss value in a couple different ways. primarily whether it is valuable to democracy and people holding the government accountable, or valuable to companies such as members of my coalition of want to use it for new business opportunities or both. our coalition focuses on both vote for democracy and business opportunities are still not disclosed or standardized. although there is incremental progress without a legislative agenda, i think the white house can't get there. >> this is good and that leads us to the causal part of the program of the convening, perhaps. so we were talking about institutionalization. we have seen efforts along those lines. the open government initiative and direct it, although it certainly hasn't -- it's translated into something to get agencies moving in the same direction. we saw more of the principle problem with the leadership is saying do this and agencies were saying no, no. it was the mid-level folks. some of this is perhaps a one point ethics czar. norm ici
quite a successful science company in our state for over 200 years. we have cars. we built a lot of cars over the years, g.m. and chrysler products. over half of the new york stock exchange, half the fortune 500, being credit card business in our state. the coast of our state is the site of the nation's summer capital, rehoboth beach and a bunch of other places. the letter "c" has been pretty big. people say why do they call you the first state? we're the first colony that threw off the yoke of the british tyranny and at the same time said pennsylvania take a hike, we want to be a state on our own. 225 years from tomorrow to be exact, the first state to ratify the constitution. but we have the best beaches in the country. last year i think there were four or five-star beaches in america, two in delaware. rehoboth and dewey. the best air force base in the world. we have, i think, the finest judiciary, finest judicial system in the state. we have the best financial controls and financial controls and cash management system. we have a triple-a credit rate system. we continue to have that ki
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7